America Can't Afford More Huddled Masses

Published: November 2, 1994

"Indecent Proposition in California" (editorial, Oct. 25) would have had a shred of credibility if you had any record in recognizing the negative impact immigration is having on cities and states.

In an era of sharp cutbacks in government services, and when entitlement programs soak up ever greater portions of government budgets, the net burden of high levels of immigration can no longer be supported. The sentiments of Emma Lazarus's anthem -- to send us your huddled masses -- are simply no longer economically possible or desirable.

American incomes have been stagnant for the last 20 years. The taxpaying population is in revolt and any new taxes to support transfer payments and new social programs are not politically feasible. The impact of population growth on cities and states is demonstrable.

California estimates that the net cost of illegal immigration to the state's taxpayers is more than $3.5 billion. In New York City, the school population has grown by more than 20 percent in the last three years, a phenomenon that is almost entirely immigration-driven.

While immigrants do contribute to the economy, their net impact is negative, especially if they cannot enter the more skilled professions. As welfare reform becomes more urgent, the competition and friction between illegal immigrants and citizens who must integrate into the work force at lower skill levels will become more intense.

The country can no longer support the present legal immigration of 700,000 people annually, let alone illegal immigration levels that push total annual immigration into the millions. Quality of life and environmental and economic realities dictate that even our current population of 260 million consumes too much of the earth's limited resources.

A halt to illegal immigration and a reduction of legal immigration are urgently needed. If both can be accomplished, the natural birth rate of the United States will eventually reverse our population to more sustainable levels.

You place misty-eyed ideology before hard reality in attacking California's Proposition 187. Some of its provisions may be unconstitutional, but its real import is that it is placing the question of out-of-control immigration policy squarely in the center of public discourse where it belongs. JOHN V. HUMMER New York, Oct. 26, 1994